Talk:Chess/Notating The Game

This page doesn't give a complete information. It only describe some notation of some move, but that isn't enougth to be able to note all the move of a game. It is also confusing by presenting to different notation in a incomplete matter. You should at least add the notation of move where to piece can go to the same place and the switch of king and rook.

I am editing the page to note in the move 30. by white the convention for notating "check", since that is a checking move. I am also noting that capture in algebraic notation is sometimes denoted with a colon. --DSYoungEsq 17:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The term cordinate notation can be confusing. I propose it be changed to long-algebraic notation. What is now algebraic notation can be called short-algebraic notaion.--Tm chk 01:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

== ICCF Notation One variant of this for internal chess engine use numbers the squares from 1 thru 71 skipping multiples of 9 so that the bishops' squares end up odd/even.--Billymac00 19:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

En passant notation
The page says that "e.p." denotes an en passant capture if there is ambiguity. Does this mean that an en passant capture is usually recorded in the same way as a simple capture? 142.161.73.123 21:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does. Read the text. --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 15:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to contradict you, but if you were right it would never be noted as there is no situation where adding « e.p. » would resolve any ambiguity, unless there was a notation mistake.
 * Actually, there is not even a single situation where indicating a capture would helps to solve an ambiguity, and this explains why the notation of regular captures with “×”, en passant with “e.p.” or even checks with “+” are all optionnals. They are nevertheless noted by most players, because it adds clarity and can often helps to resolve notations errors, especially when both players are in time troubles.
 * There is never ambiguities with the pawns, as the only possible ambiguity is when 2 identical pieces can move to the same square. Personnaly, in such a situation I simply use the long notation for that single move because it is less subject to notation error (in time presure, people often only notate the column when they should have noted the row). Not stricly conform, but I know of no arbiter that will refuse it (there is even a number of exceptionnal situations where it is the only non-ambiguous notation — in practive I’ve seen it only with 3 queens, and it is unrealistic that it ever happened with 3 bishops or 4 rooks in a serious game).
 * Disclaimer: I am a certified arbiter and have read hundreds pages of rules and comments about interpretation of FIDE’s tournament rules.
 * Have a nice day,
 * — 184.163.78.39 (discuss) 10:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer: I am a certified arbiter and have read hundreds pages of rules and comments about interpretation of FIDE’s tournament rules.
 * Have a nice day,
 * — 184.163.78.39 (discuss) 10:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

ICCF Notation
How exactly are castling, check, and checkmate recorded in ICCF numerical notation? Examples please. --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 15:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ICCF numeric notation does not give them any significants. The start and end positions are simply recorded. ICCF only gives significants to pawn promotion in which a 5th digit is added which indicates the rank to which the pawn is promoted. --dark lama  16:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (editconflict with Darklama) Yep, that's what I was going to say. Check and checkmate symbols are not essential to recording a move, and usually omitted in ICCF, which tries to be the most "basic" possible notation. However, I did add some examples and explanations to the page just to make all that clear. Tempodivalse 16:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Descriptive notation
There is a page for algebraic notation. Should there be one for descriptive notation? --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 21:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For now, unless the descriptive description section became much larger, there is no real need for a separate page. But perhaps that section didn't existed at all when you made your comment, and it certainly should be more complete.  I also note that the claim that people « will run into quite frequently is descriptive notation » is not that true anymore,
 * A more important remark, is that only some “recently” written books in descriptive notation used the symbol “N” to notate Knights: “Kt” or even “S” (for Springer in German) was by far more common because the abreviation “N” didn’t existed, or at least it wasn’t popular at all). Also, AFAIK the symbol O-O for castling never existed in descriptive (it was simply spelled out with an abreviation like roq.) It certainly should be more complete and give examples like P-QKt8=Q and explain some of the mains tricks to avoid ambiguities (or at the very least how to resolve them).
 * — 184.163.78.39 (discuss) 10:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * — 184.163.78.39 (discuss) 10:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)